01-03-2007, 03:08 AM
the washington comparison is horrible. the sunni's liked saddam because he wasn't mass murdering and torturing them, not because they loved him or for pride of country.
and saying clinton worried about the 'right' sandniggers is equally as awful a comparison. bush sr should've taken saddam when he had the chance, yes. but clinton let hussein rub his balls in his face for a decade. THAT'S what gave him the wrong impression that america was weak and didn't have the stomach to make him comply. if not for that, maybe saddam would've succumbed to inspections and the war not only wouldn't have happened but couldn't have happened under bush.
IF clinton had done his job, maybe 911 would've still happened but iraq wouldn't have been a worry. then bush could've spent all his time on al queda and bin laden after 911.
but you dont want to hear that logic, right? you just want to hear about how bush has horns and is responsible for everything wrong in the world today.
bush isn't perfect, far from it. but he's not the anti-christ you've built him up to be.
and saying clinton worried about the 'right' sandniggers is equally as awful a comparison. bush sr should've taken saddam when he had the chance, yes. but clinton let hussein rub his balls in his face for a decade. THAT'S what gave him the wrong impression that america was weak and didn't have the stomach to make him comply. if not for that, maybe saddam would've succumbed to inspections and the war not only wouldn't have happened but couldn't have happened under bush.
IF clinton had done his job, maybe 911 would've still happened but iraq wouldn't have been a worry. then bush could've spent all his time on al queda and bin laden after 911.
but you dont want to hear that logic, right? you just want to hear about how bush has horns and is responsible for everything wrong in the world today.
bush isn't perfect, far from it. but he's not the anti-christ you've built him up to be.